mistake of fact jury instruction (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

mistake of fact jury instruction in California

6 California opinions name it 1 courts 2014–2025 3 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (9)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Lawsongreen
calctapp · 2013 · cited in 3 California opinions naming this issue, 2015–2021
2 sentences

2021(People v. Lucero (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1016 ; § 26.) “Penal Code section 26 lists classes of persons deemed incapable of committing crimes, including ‘[p]ersons who committed the act . . . charged under an ignorance or mistake of fact, which disproves any criminal intent.’ ” (People v. Givan (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 335, 343 .) “A ‘mistake of fact’ defense negates an element of a charged crime because it disproves criminal intent. [Citations.] However, a mistake of fact jury instruction is not appropriate where the defendant’s mistaken belief does not negate an element of the crime.” (Id.

2021(People v. Lucero (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1016 ; § 26.) “Penal Code section 26 lists classes of persons deemed incapable of committing crimes, including ‘[p]ersons who committed the act . . . charged under an ignorance or mistake of fact, which disproves any criminal intent.’ ” (People v. Givan (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 335, 343 .) “A ‘mistake of fact’ defense negates an element of a charged crime because it disproves criminal intent. [Citations.] However, a mistake of fact jury instruction is not appropriate where the defendant’s mistaken belief does not negate an element of the crime.” (Id.

23
People v. Givangreen
calctapp · 2015 · cited in 3 California opinions naming this issue, 2021–2025
2 sentences

2025(See People v. Givan, supra, 233 Cal.App.4th at p. 345 [“a mistake of fact jury instruction is not appropriate where the defendant’s mistaken belief does not negate an element of the crime”].) Therefore, we conclude Sanchez’s asserted mistake of fact did not justify the instruction.

2021(People v. Lucero (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1016 ; § 26.) “Penal Code section 26 lists classes of persons deemed incapable of committing crimes, including ‘[p]ersons who committed the act . . . charged under an ignorance or mistake of fact, which disproves any criminal intent.’ ” (People v. Givan (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 335, 343 .) “A ‘mistake of fact’ defense negates an element of a charged crime because it disproves criminal intent. [Citations.] However, a mistake of fact jury instruction is not appropriate where the defendant’s mistaken belief does not negate an element of the crime.” (Id.

13
People v. Parkergreen
calctapp · 1985 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015(See People v. Parker (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 818, 821-823 [ 223 Cal.Rptr. 284 ] [mistaken belief burglarized building was not a residence was no defense because knowledge of its residential character was not required for first degree burglary]; People v. Velez (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 558, 565-566 [ 192 Cal.Rptr. 686 ] (Velez) [mistake of fact defense not permissible for involuntary manslaughter where the defendant had mistaken belief gun could not be fired]; People v. Vineberg (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 127, 135-136 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 819 ] [the defendants, who were bailees of stored silver and gold, cou

2015(See People v. Parker (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 818, 821-823 [ 223 Cal.Rptr. 284 ] [mistaken belief burglarized building was not a residence was no defense because knowledge of its residential character was not required for first degree burglary]; People v. Velez (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 558, 565-566 [ 192 Cal.Rptr. 686 ] (Velez) [mistake of fact defense not permissible for involuntary manslaughter where the defendant had mistaken belief gun could not be fired]; People v. Vineberg (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 127, 135-136 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 819 ] [the defendants, who were bailees of stored silver and gold, cou

11
People v. Vineberggreen
calctapp · 1981 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015(See People v. Parker (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 818, 821-823 [ 223 Cal.Rptr. 284 ] [mistaken belief burglarized building was not a residence was no defense because knowledge of its residential character was not required for first degree burglary]; People v. Velez (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 558, 565-566 [ 192 Cal.Rptr. 686 ] (Velez) [mistake of fact defense not permissible for involuntary manslaughter where the defendant had mistaken belief gun could not be fired]; People v. Vineberg (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 127, 135-136 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 819 ] [the defendants, who were bailees of stored silver and gold, cou

2015(See People v. Parker (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 818, 821-823 [ 223 Cal.Rptr. 284 ] [mistaken belief burglarized building was not a residence was no defense because knowledge of its residential character was not required for first degree burglary]; People v. Velez (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 558, 565-566 [ 192 Cal.Rptr. 686 ] (Velez) [mistake of fact defense not permissible for involuntary manslaughter where the defendant had mistaken belief gun could not be fired]; People v. Vineberg (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 127, 135-136 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 819 ] [the defendants, who were bailees of stored silver and gold, cou

11
People v. Medlingreen
calctapp · 2009 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015(Ochoa, supra, at p. 1205 ; see People v. Watson (1981) 30 Cal.3d 290, 296 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 43 , 637 P.2d 279 ] [“if a reasonable person in [the] defendant’s position would have been aware of the risk involved, then [the] defendant is presumed to have had such an awareness”]; People v. Medlin (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1092, 1103 [ 100 Cal.Rptr.3d 810 ] [the “defendant’s subjective awareness” is not relevant when analyzing criminal negligence]; People v. Lara (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 102, 108 [ 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 402 ] [“Where liability may be imposed based on ‘criminal negligence,’ the defendant’s subjec

2015(Ochoa, supra, at p. 1205 ; see People v. Watson (1981) 30 Cal.3d 290, 296 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 43 , 637 P.2d 279 ] [“if a reasonable person in [the] defendant’s position would have been aware of the risk involved, then [the] defendant is presumed to have had such an awareness”]; People v. Medlin (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1092, 1103 [ 100 Cal.Rptr.3d 810 ] [the “defendant’s subjective awareness” is not relevant when analyzing criminal negligence]; People v. Lara (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 102, 108 [ 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 402 ] [“Where liability may be imposed based on ‘criminal negligence,’ the defendant’s subjec

11
People v. Watsongreen
cal · 1981 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015(Ochoa, supra, at p. 1205 ; see People v. Watson (1981) 30 Cal.3d 290, 296 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 43 , 637 P.2d 279 ] [“if a reasonable person in [the] defendant’s position would have been aware of the risk involved, then [the] defendant is presumed to have had such an awareness”]; People v. Medlin (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1092, 1103 [ 100 Cal.Rptr.3d 810 ] [the “defendant’s subjective awareness” is not relevant when analyzing criminal negligence]; People v. Lara (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 102, 108 [ 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 402 ] [“Where liability may be imposed based on ‘criminal negligence,’ the defendant’s subjec

2015(Ochoa, supra, at p. 1205 ; see People v. Watson (1981) 30 Cal.3d 290, 296 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 43 , 637 P.2d 279 ] [“if a reasonable person in [the] defendant’s position would have been aware of the risk involved, then [the] defendant is presumed to have had such an awareness”]; People v. Medlin (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1092, 1103 [ 100 Cal.Rptr.3d 810 ] [the “defendant’s subjective awareness” is not relevant when analyzing criminal negligence]; People v. Lara (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 102, 108 [ 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 402 ] [“Where liability may be imposed based on ‘criminal negligence,’ the defendant’s subjec

11
People v. Hawthornegreen
cal · 1992 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
1 sentence

2015(People v. Hawthorne, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 76 [because a court “may refuse an instruction that misstates the law, it obviously has no sua sponte duty to misguide the jury”].) Thus, defendant’s argument he was denied a constitutional right to present a defense is without merit.

11
People v. Laragreen
calctapp · 1996 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015(Ochoa, supra, at p. 1205 ; see People v. Watson (1981) 30 Cal.3d 290, 296 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 43 , 637 P.2d 279 ] [“if a reasonable person in [the] defendant’s position would have been aware of the risk involved, then [the] defendant is presumed to have had such an awareness”]; People v. Medlin (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1092, 1103 [ 100 Cal.Rptr.3d 810 ] [the “defendant’s subjective awareness” is not relevant when analyzing criminal negligence]; People v. Lara (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 102, 108 [ 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 402 ] [“Where liability may be imposed based on ‘criminal negligence,’ the defendant’s subjec

2015(Ochoa, supra, at p. 1205 ; see People v. Watson (1981) 30 Cal.3d 290, 296 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 43 , 637 P.2d 279 ] [“if a reasonable person in [the] defendant’s position would have been aware of the risk involved, then [the] defendant is presumed to have had such an awareness”]; People v. Medlin (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1092, 1103 [ 100 Cal.Rptr.3d 810 ] [the “defendant’s subjective awareness” is not relevant when analyzing criminal negligence]; People v. Lara (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 102, 108 [ 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 402 ] [“Where liability may be imposed based on ‘criminal negligence,’ the defendant’s subjec

11
People v. Velezgreen
calctapp · 1983 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015In contrast, this court’s decision in Velez, supra, 144 Cal.App.3d 558 , is instructive regarding the proper refusal of a mistake of fact jury instruction in a matter involving criminal negligence.

2015(Velez, supra, 144 Cal.App.3d at p. 563 .) Defense counsel requested, inter alia, a mistake of fact jury instruction, which the trial court refused.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Lucero green
calctapp · 1988
2 sentences

2021(People v. Lucero (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1016 ; § 26.) “Penal Code section 26 lists classes of persons deemed incapable of committing crimes, including ‘[p]ersons who committed the act . . . charged under an ignorance or mistake of fact, which disproves any criminal intent.’ ” (People v. Givan (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 335, 343 .) “A ‘mistake of fact’ defense negates an element of a charged crime because it disproves criminal intent. [Citations.] However, a mistake of fact jury instruction is not appropriate where the defendant’s mistaken belief does not negate an element of the crime.” (Id.

2021(People v. Lucero (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1016 ; § 26.) “Penal Code section 26 lists classes of persons deemed incapable of committing crimes, including ‘[p]ersons who committed the act . . . charged under an ignorance or mistake of fact, which disproves any criminal intent.’ ” (People v. Givan (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 335, 343 .) “A ‘mistake of fact’ defense negates an element of a charged crime because it disproves criminal intent. [Citations.] However, a mistake of fact jury instruction is not appropriate where the defendant’s mistaken belief does not negate an element of the crime.” (Id.

22021–2021
People v. Andersen green
calctapp · 1994
1 sentence

2016(People v. Billings (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 422, 427-428 .) “The trial court has a duty to instruct the jury on all principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence [citation] and a correlative duty to refrain from instructing on irrelevant and confusing principles of law [citation].” (People v. Andersen (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1250 ) “A trial court must give a requested instruction only if it is supported by substantial evidence, that is, evidence sufficient to deserve jury consideration. [Citations.] . . . ‘[U]nsupported theories should not be presented to the jury.’ [Citati

12016–2016
People v. Marshall green
cal · 1997
1 sentence

2016(People v. Billings (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 422, 427-428 .) “The trial court has a duty to instruct the jury on all principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence [citation] and a correlative duty to refrain from instructing on irrelevant and confusing principles of law [citation].” (People v. Andersen (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1250 ) “A trial court must give a requested instruction only if it is supported by substantial evidence, that is, evidence sufficient to deserve jury consideration. [Citations.] . . . ‘[U]nsupported theories should not be presented to the jury.’ [Citati

12016–2016
People v. Billings green
calctapp · 1981
1 sentence

2016(People v. Billings (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 422, 427-428 .) “The trial court has a duty to instruct the jury on all principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence [citation] and a correlative duty to refrain from instructing on irrelevant and confusing principles of law [citation].” (People v. Andersen (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1250 ) “A trial court must give a requested instruction only if it is supported by substantial evidence, that is, evidence sufficient to deserve jury consideration. [Citations.] . . . ‘[U]nsupported theories should not be presented to the jury.’ [Citati

12016–2016
People v. Jennings green
cal · 2010
1 sentence

2014(Jennings, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 668 .) The trial court did not err by omitting a mistake of fact jury instruction.

12014–2014

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CA § Cal. Penal Code § 26 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

CA 6 (2014–2025) HI 4 (2008–2014) PA 3 (2001–2024) TX 2 (2009–2026) IL 2 (2003–2003)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check